An agent deducting money from the principal's proceeds without his knowledge

A question about a selling agent who told his principal a lower price than the real one and kept the difference for licensing costs he had undertaken to pay, in which Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyya answered that an agent's possession of his principal's property is a possession of trust, that he must hand over the full real price, and that he may neither keep any of it nor take it as a fee that was never stipulated, unless the principal gives him something after learning the facts and consenting. ¹

The questioner said he had sold his car to someone, telling him the registration was temporarily suspended; some time later the buyer asked for his help in selling it, and he agreed to sell it on the buyer's behalf and to bear the licensing costs of thirty thousand. He sold it to a third person for four hundred and fifty thousand, told the first buyer the price was only four hundred and twenty thousand, which the buyer took, and kept the thirty thousand to spend on the licensing papers; he asked about the ruling on this, and whether he may keep whatever is left of the thirty thousand after the licensing costs as payment for selling the car. ¹

Dar al-Ifta ruled that the settled principle in financial dealings is that an agent's possession of his principal's property is a possession of trust: he is bound by his principal's interest and conditions, owes truthfulness and disclosure, and is liable for transgression and negligence; sharia encourages accepting such a trust, as in al-Ma'ida 2 and the hadith of Abu Hurayra, recorded by al-Tabarani, that God helps the servant as long as the servant helps his brother, and al-Khatib al-Shirbini in Mughni al-Muhtaj (3/231–232) says accepting an agency is recommended. ¹ It characterised the relationship as an agency to sell, defining agency with Badr al-Din al-Ayni in al-Binaya (9/216) as a person's putting another in his place for a known transaction, and with al-Shirbini (3/231), who also reports consensus on its permissibility because need calls for it; it quoted Ibn Qudama in al-Mughni (5/203) that there is no disagreement on the permissibility of appointing an agent to buy and sell, since some people are not skilled at trade, have no time for it, or find it beneath their station. ¹

Dar al-Ifta then explained that everything the agent obtains as the price of the goods belongs wholly to the principal, because the agent acts in another's property, by his permission and for his benefit, so he must report what took place in the sale exactly as it was; it cited al-Sarakhsi in al-Mabsut (12/206), al-Qarafi in al-Dhakhira (8/10), al-Mawardi in al-Hawi (6/1191) and Ibn Qudama in al-Mughni (5/263). ¹ It said that concealing the real price and reporting a lower one to the principal is a forbidden lie and a form of deceit, fraud and betrayal of trust, citing the hadith of Hakim ibn Hizam in the two Sahihs that the two parties to a sale have a choice as long as they have not parted, and that if they are truthful and open their sale is blessed, while if they conceal and lie its blessing is wiped out, with al-Nawawi's explanation in his commentary on Sahih Muslim (10/176) that disclosure includes reporting the price, and that of al-Amir al-San'ani in al-Tanwir (4/594–595); and the hadith of Abu Hurayra (may God be pleased with him) in Sahih Muslim that whoever deceives us is not of us, with Ibn Hubayra's remark in al-Ifsah (8/94) that it warns against deceit in part and in whole. ¹

It said the agent may not use the licensing costs as a pretext to take part of the price for himself without his principal's knowledge and express consent, since his possession is one of trust, not of ownership, and that seizing any of the price under headings not agreed upon is consuming people's wealth wrongfully, forbidden in al-Nisa 29, and harming the principal, forbidden by the hadith of Ibn Abbas that there is no harm and no reciprocating harm, recorded by Ibn Majah and Ahmad; and that having imposed these costs on himself he must honour what he stipulated, by the hadith that believers abide by their conditions, recorded by Ibn Abi Shayba from Ata. ¹ It ruled that he may not take what remains of the licensing money as a fee or compensation for his effort unless this was expressly agreed, citing the hadith of Anas ibn Malik in al-Daraqutni that a Muslim's property is lawful only with his willing consent, which Ibn Abd al-Barr in al-Istidhkar (7/88) calls an agreed principle; an agent's work is therefore treated as voluntary help unless he stipulated a known fee when accepting the agency, as al-Bazzazi says in his Fatawa (1/452) that one told to buy and sell with no fee mentioned receives nothing, since he was merely asked for help. ¹

Dar al-Ifta concluded that the questioner, having agreed to sell the car on the first buyer's behalf and undertaken the licensing costs, is bound in sharia to hand over the full price for which it was sold, four hundred and fifty thousand; he may not report a lower price nor keep the thirty thousand or any part of it, and must return the whole sum, unless the first buyer gives him some of it after learning the truth and consenting willingly. ¹

Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyya published this fatwa on dar-alifta.org as no. 8999, dated 16 June 2026, in the category of agency, among the fatwas of the Grand Mufti Nazir Muhammad Ayyad. ¹ The museum records this text as a historical document attributed to the body or scholar that issued it; it issues no ruling of its own.